When clients are harmed by the malpractice of a lawyer, they oftentimes face a second, potentially more complicated lawsuit. The plaintiff-clients must prove the underlying case against the original defendant(s) in which the lawyer committed malpractice, and they must prove the negligence of the defendant-lawyer in order to win the malpractice action. While Colorado courts have long recognized that the solvency or insolvency of the underlying defendant must be proven in a legal malpractice case, the courts had not, until recently, answered the question of whether that responsibility lies with the plaintiff or defendant lawyer.

With the recent $10 million jury award to a general counsel turned internal whistleblower in Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-02356 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016), the topic of protections and incentives available to in-house counsel who expose fraudulent or illegal conduct is in the forefront. Clay Wire, a partner at Ogborn Mihm, LLP, is one of the few trial attorneys with experience representing in-house counsel in wrongful termination and whistleblower claims. He has recently published an article regarding common claims by in-house counsel turned whistleblowers, and the common issues that arise in such claims, which is available here.